Mapping and Explaining the Use of the Left-Right Divide* · Noël and Thérien, 2008; Zechmeister,...

61

brazilianpoliticalsciencereview

A R T I C L E

Mapping and Explaining the Use of the Left-Right Divide*

André FreireDepartment of Political Science and Public Policies and Centre for Sociological

Studies and Research, Lisbon University Institute, Portugal

Kats KivistikInstitute of Government and Politics, University of Tartu, Estonia

This study is about mapping and explaining the use of the Left-Right di-vide across 14 countries from 5 Continents and relies on the richness of the post electoral mass surveys from the Comparative National Election Project: 14 coun-tries and 18 elections spread over 5 continents. The paper shows not only how extensively the LR divide is used in these 14 countries, but also explains varia-tion across both individuals and countries in terms of the factors determining LR recognition and use. Overall, it is shown that, although seen world-wide, the LR divide (both for self-placement and party placement) is more present in long con-solidated and middle-aged democracies and countries with freer media systems than in new democracies and societies with less free media systems. In the case of parties LR placement, party size also counts: larger parties are more easily placed. Additionally, we also show that LR recognition is more socially and politically determined in long consolidated and middle-aged democracies and in countries with more freedom of the press than in new democracies and in systems with less free media system. These findings add to the existing knowledge about these top-ics because previous studies were either country/Continent specific, or, if global in nature, never invested in explaining individual and system variation across 14 from 5 Continents. Besides, these findings mean that in the long term probably the new democracies will converge with the long consolidated or middle-aged ones, but this is an empirical question to be researched in future studies.

Keywords: Left-right; America; Europe; Africa; Asia.

* The data necessary to reproduce numerical results can be found in http://bpsr.org.br/files/arquivos/Banco_Dados_Freire_Kivistik.html

62 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89

bpsr Mapping and Explaining the Use of the Left-Right Divide

Introduction

After the French Revolution, the idea of a left-right (LR) divide gained great

importance in mass politics (Bobbio, 1994; Caramani, 2004; Laponce, 1981).

At the individual level, the division between left and right functions as an instrument to

reduce the complexity of the political universe; at the systemic level, it functions as a code

of communication (Fuchs and Klingermann, 1990).

In spite of all the theories about the “end of ideology” (Aron, 2002; Bell, 2000;

Lipset, 1987), the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1989) and about a certain overcoming of

the division between left and right (Giddens, 1996), the truth is that these same theories

have been shrouded in an ideological character and, soon after being defended, have been

followed by the appearance of new ideological forms or a renewed prominence of the “old”

ideologies (Heywood, 2003). Furthermore, various studies have documented the remain-

ing (or even increasing) importance of electors’ positions on the LR (or liberal-conserva-

tive in the US and some other countries) scale as a defining factor for their voting choices

in several regions of the world: in long consolidated democracies in Europe and North

America (Franklin et al, 1992; Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Gunther and Montero, 2001; Van

der Eijk et al, 2005), in new/middle-aged democracies in Southern and Eastern Europe

(Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Gunther and Montero, 2001; Kitschelt et al, 1999; Markowski,

1997), in Latin America (Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Luna and Zechmeister, 2010) and in

at least some countries in East Asia (Jou, 2010; Lee, 2007).

Additionally, studies about mass political attitudes based on opinion surveys and

other sources have shown that in «less central» parts of the world a very large majority

of citizens (as well as political experts) not only recognize the LR/liberal-conservative

divide, but are also able to place the political parties «correctly» on such a scale (Barnes,

2002; Colomer and Escatel, 2005; Dalton, 2006; Dalton, Farrel and McAllister, 2011; Ev-

ans and Whitefield, 1998; Freire, 2006a; Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Huber and Inglehart,

1995; Jou, 2010; Kitschelt et all, 1999; Lee, 2007; Luna Zechmeister, 2010; Markowski,

1997; Noël and Thérien, 2008; Zechmeister, 2006 and 2010). Moreover, it has been shown

that in several regions of the world, individual LR self-placement is also anchored in issue

attitudes and value orientations (Dalton, 2006; Freire, 2006b and 2008; Freire and Belchi-

or, 2011; Inglehart and Klingerman, 1976; Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Knutsen, 1997, 1998;

Knutsen and Scarbrough, 1995; Lee, 2007; Luna Zechmeister, 2010; Markowski, 1997;

Noël and Thérien, 2008; Zechmeister, 2006 and 2010).

Having established the continued relevance and usefulness of the LR divide for both

long consolidated and new democracies, and therefore the relevance of studying these

topics to understand the functioning of democratic political systems, one could reasonably

63 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89

bpsr André Freire and Kats Kivistik

ask: what relevant elements can be added to this area of knowledge? With the present

study about mapping and explaining the use of the LR divide across 14 countries from

five continents, we believe that we can add the following: first, we can add relevant data

and interpretations given the richness of datasets from the Comparative National Election

Project (CNEP I-III). The richness relies on the diversity of countries included that allows

us to compare and explain variation in LR recognition and use across 14 countries from

five continents, i.e., on a scale never done before (usually these type of analyses are conti-

nent or country specific: Freire, 2006b and 2008; Freire and Belchior, 2011; Knutsen and

Scarbrough, 1995; Lee, 2007; Luna Zechmeister, 2010; Markowski, 1997; Zechmeister,

2006 and 2010; some cross continent analyses done before map LR recognition but nei-

ther explain variation across individuals nor across countries: Dalton, 2006; Gunther and

Kuan, 2007; Noël and Thérien, 2008). The reader should bear in mind that CNEP I-III

includes post electoral mass surveys from 14 countries and 18 elections (cases) from five

continents: Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. We have relevant data

for the present paper from the following cases included in CNEP I-III: Argentina 2007,

Bulgaria 1996, Chile 1994 and 1999, Greece 1996, Hong Kong 1998, Hungary 1998 and

2006, Italy 1996 and 2006, Mexico 2006, Mozambique 2004, Portugal 2005, South Africa

2004, Spain 1996 and 2004, USA 2004, and Uruguay 1994 and 2004.2

Considering all this, we believe that we can advance scientific knowledge about the

recognition and use of the LR divide across 14 countries from five continents by pursu-

ing the following objectives: first, at the individual level, we want to know and explain

how extensively the LR divide is used (LR self-placement: LR SP/ LR party placement by

citizens: LR PP) in the 14 countries. Second, mostly using the two step hierarchical re-

gression (multi-level modelling) approach (Achen, 2005; Jusko and Shively, 2005; Lachat,

2008), we want to explain variation across countries in terms of the factors determining

LR recognition and use. These findings add to the existent knowledge about these topics

because previous studies were either country/continent specific, or, if global in nature,

never invested in explaining variations across individuals and countries.

But there is more about the relevance of these topics. On the one hand, this fresh

CNEP I-III data will allow us to update information about the levels of LR recognition and

use worldwide. But on the other, we do not know from previous studies if the structure of

individual determination of LR recognition is the same worldwide or not. If it is similar

(for example, if education, political interest, media exposure, and party identification work

in the same direction as in Europe and North America), then the differences in overall

2 For the US in 1992 and Greece in 2004 we have information about the level of LR recognition but not enough information (relevant variables missing) to explain variation both at the individual and the country level.

64 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


recognition and use between countries might be due to compositional differences in the

aggregate levels of education, political interest, media exposure and party identification

in the different countries, and some convergence between countries might be expected

in the future when those compositional differences are reduced. But if that structure of

determination is rather different, then country specific macro events should weigh more

to explain LR recognition and use, and thus convergence between countries will be less

probable in future. Moreover, this situation would also raise serious doubts about the pos-

sibility of comparing mass use of the LR schema worldwide. We will also try to specify the

impact of some macro-level factors (age of the democratic regime, freedom of media, and

level of educational development) on LR recognition and use. Again, if these macro-level

explanatory factors are indeed relevant to explain variations in both the overall levels of

recognition and in the structure of determination, as we expect, then we should see some

convergence between countries when democratic regimes (from non-Western parts of the

world) become more mature, freedom of the press is more solid, and social development

more advanced. This would also give indications of the heuristic value of LR for compar-

ing mass political attitudes and behaviour worldwide.

We will proceed as follows: in the second section, we will review the theory about

LR recognition and formulate hypotheses. In the third section, data and methods will be

presented. In the fourth and fifth sections, we will analyse the questions related to LR

recognition and use. We finish with our conclusions.

Theory and Hypotheses

Following Converse’s study (1964), we assume that if people recognize the labels

left and right, if they are able to place themselves and parties on the LR continuum, then

it is reasonable to claim that this is at least one indicator that these ideological concepts

are still meaningful and valid. 3 Therefore, in order to assess the importance of LR con-

cepts, we will first analyse the levels of LR SP and how that recognition is influenced by

individual and country level factors. Data from advanced Western democracies confirm,

for instance, that on average LR is widely understood by almost 90% of people (Knut-

sen, 1998; McAllister and White, 2007). The other regions of the world are less studied;

nevertheless, the existing research supports the idea that, although usually to a variable

3 Of course, there are other indicators of the meaningfulness and validity of the LR divide. See Van der Eijk et al, 2005 for the impact of LR on the vote and Noël and Thérien, 2008: 32-82 for the consideration of “clashes over social equality”/substantive policy content in terms of “social justice”. However, we believe that our option is more adequate because is it less demanding to compare new and long consolidated democracies and because it does not make assumptions about a one-dimensional meaning regarding the LR divide.

65 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


extent, LR is widely recognized and used by the mass publics in very different regions of

the world (Barnes, 2002; Colomer and Escatel, 2005; Dalton, 2006; Evans and Whitefield,

1998; Freire, 2006a; Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Jou, 2010; Kitschelt et all, 1999; Lee, 2007;

Luna Zechmeister, 2010; Markowski, 1997; Noël and Thérien, 2008; Zechmeister, 2006

and 2010).

Although it is known that the LR divide is widely recognized and used by mass pub-

lics in several regions of the world, cross continent comparisons are less common (but

see Dalton, 2006; Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Noël and Thérien, 2008). Moreover, none of

these rather scarce “global studies” tried testing the individual-level and macro-level de-

terminants of citizens’ LR recognition and use across countries from different regions of

the world. It is precisely this gap we intend to fill with our paper. First, at the individual

level, we want to know how extensively the LR divide in the 14 countries from the five

continents under scrutiny is used. Second, at the macro level, we want to explain variation

across countries in terms of the overall level of recognition and use, and in terms of the

impact of the individual level determinants on LR recognition and use.

Traditionally, the recognition and utilization of the LR divide is associated with the

sophistication and awareness of individual citizens – more sophisticated people under-

stand these ideological labels better and in a more coherent way (Freire, 2006a; Freire and

Belchior, 2011; Kitschelt and Hellemans, 1990; Zechmeister, 2006). The most popular way

to conceptualize this is through education. In addition to education, a person’s political

interest and age are most often said to increase the level of recognition and use of the LR

divide. The more educated and politically interested people are, the more familiar they are

with ideological terms, as they have more resources and motivation. Usually, other aspects

being held constant, older people are more aware of political terms because they have had

more time to learn them through socialization. Only in cases of regime change may this be

questionable, because then one could expect young people to adjust to the new situation

more quickly (Freire, 2006a). But there are still other factors that have been shown to

explain LR recognition like media exposure and party identification – people with more

media exposure and stronger levels of party identification are also more likely to be better

informed about and/or engaged in politics and therefore are also expected to show higher

levels of LR recognition and use (Freire, 2006a; Freire and Belchior, 2011; Kitschelt and

Hellemans, 1990; Zechmeister, 2006). From previous findings, we have derived our indi-

vidual level hypotheses:

Hypothesis on education and LR recognition: more educated people recognize and

utilize the terms LR better than the less educated;

Hypothesis on political interest and LR recognition: more politically interested peo-

ple recognize and utilize the terms LR better than the less interested;

66 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Hypothesis on age and LR recognition: others things being held constant, older peo-

ple recognize and utilize the terms LR better than younger people.

Hypothesis on media exposure and LR recognition: more informed people recognize

and utilize the terms LR better than the less informed;

Hypothesis on party identification and LR recognition: people with stronger levels

of party identification recognize and utilize the terms LR better than those with weaker

levels of party identification.

The problem with the latter two hypotheses is that questions about media exposure

and party identification were not asked in all countries taking part in the CNEP I-III,

therefore, these two additional variables will be used only in a limited way. Of course

this is a common problem when we use secondary survey data but it is not necessarily an

obstacle to producing good quality research (Kiecolt and Nathan, 1985), namely because

the 19 cases/countries from four Continents and survey data available for them allow us

to perform tests on a global scale done never before. In the present paper we will test the

model with only a subset of variables (age, education, political interest) for the 19 cases/

countries (see Tables 5.1 to 5.4 below), but we will also test the full model for all the cases/

countries (13) where all variables are available (data not shown in the tables but findings

mentioned in the text). Thus, there is some element of cross validation in these two types

of tests and the findings are quite robust, as we will demonstrate. Moreover, regarding the

explanatory factors/independent variables (age, education, political interest, media expo-

sure, party identification) used to explain LR recognition and use (at the individual level),

they follow the so-called “political sophistication model” and are pretty common in the

literature about LR conceptualization among the mass publics (see Converse, 1964; Freire,

2006b; Freire and Belchior, 2011; Fuchs and Klingemann, 1990; Kitschelt and Hellemans,

1990; Klingemann, 1979; Zechmeister, 2006). As for the macro level explanatory variables

(see below), they will be deduced from the theoretical literature cited below.

Let us now pass to the macro level. The formation of ideological (and partisan) iden-

tities is a process that continues to evolve during individual socialization (Barnes, Mc-

Donough and Pina, 1985; Campbell, 1980; Converse, 1964, 1969; Freire, 2006a; Niemi

et al, 1985). Moreover, it is strongly dependent upon an existing environment of effec-

tive partisan and ideological differentiation, associated with the existence of free political

competition. In authoritarian regimes up to the beginning of their democratic transitions,

parties were usually a proscribed reality and ideological differences were repressed. De-

spite the repression of partisan and ideological pluralism, at times it did exist, although

it was very limited. Therefore, the conditions for the formation of ideological (partisan)

identities were severely reduced, especially when comparing these new regimes to older

democracies.

67 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Even in competitive political environments, for individuals to identify themselves with

certain LR ideological areas, it is necessary that such political organizations and notions,

as well as the image and content that define and/or are associated with them, consolidate

their presence in the political and media arenas (Barnes, 2002; Barnes, McDonough and

Pina, 1985; Converse, 1969; Gunther and Montero, 2001; Niemi et al, 1985). Thus, politi-

cization and political intermediation are preconditions for the formation and relevance of

LR attitudes by mass publics (Beck et al, 2002; Gunther and Kuan, 2007). Moreover, the

usual instability associated with new party systems is yet another reason for a lower level

of LR recognition by citizens in new democracies (Dix, 1992; Freire, 2006a; Gunther and

Kuan, 2007; Mainwaring and Torcal, 2005; Rose and Munro, 2003).

Therefore, we expect that in long consolidated democracies and more developed so-

cieties individual level variation in terms of recognition and use of the LR divide is more

determined by education, income, political interest, media exposure, and strength of party

identification than in new democracies and less developed countries. In the latter regimes

and societies, lower levels of LR recognition are more widespread, thus more determined

by cultural, historical and political factors than by individual level factors. Thus, we derive

our macro level hypotheses:

Hypothesis on the age of democratic regime and the overall level of LR recognition

and use across countries: the longer the democratic tradition in a country (as measured by

“the numbers of years since the last democratic transition”), the higher the level of recog-

nition and utilization of the LR divide by mass publics.

Hypothesis on the age of the democratic regime and the individual level determina-

tion of LR recognition and use across countries: the longer the democratic tradition in a

country, the more the level of recognition and utilization of the LR divide by mass publics

is determined by individual level determinants (age, education, political interest, strength

of party identification, and media exposure).

Hypothesis on the level of social development of societies and the overall level of

LR recognition and use across countries: The more socially and politically developed a

country (as measured by “the Freedom House index of overall press freedom” and “the

percentage of people with secondary education or more”) the more the level of recognition

and utilization of the LR divide by mass publics.

Hypothesis on the level of social development of societies and the individual level

determination of LR recognition and use across countries: The more socially and political-

ly developed a country, the more the level of recognition and utilization of the LR divide

by mass publics is determined by individual level determinants.

68 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Table 1. Typology of countries in terms of age of the democratic regime

and level of development

Level of development of societies: percentage of persons with secondary

education completed or more

New democracies:up to 24 years since the

last transition

Middle-aged democracies:

between 26 and 41 years since the last transition

Long consolidated democracies:more than 41

years since the last transition

Total

Low level: up to 31.3% Hong Kong 1998 (1) Portugal 2005 Italy 1996 4 (5)

Spain 1993

Mozambique 2004

Middle level: between 31.7% and 49.40%

Bulgaria 1996 Greece 2004 Italy 2006 9

Chile 1994 Spain 2004

Greece 1996

Hungary 1998

Hungary 2006

South Africa 2004

High level: more than 49.40% Argentina 2007 USA 1992 7

Chile 2000 USA 2004

Mexico 2006

Uruguay 1994

Uruguay 2004

Total 13 (14) 3 4 20 (21)

Sources:

1) Polity IV for “time elapsed since the last democratic regime transition”;

2) “Percentage of persons with secondary education completed or more” – computed from the CNEP mass surveys in each country.

Notes:

1) Hong Kong is not a democracy, especially not at the time of the survey, as can be clearly seen in the Freedom House report for that

country in 2002. See http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2002&country=2471 (retrieved on 29/09/2011).

Moreover, the country was considered “partly free” and scored a 5 in terms of “political rights” (on a scale from 1, “the most free”, to 7,

“the least free”). Thus, this case was either considered “missing” in our macro level analysis or scored with the value “0” for the number

of years since the last democratic transition.

In Table 1 we cross “the numbers of years since the last democratic transition”, an

indicator of the level of democratic consolidation in each country, with an indicator of the

level of socio-economic development, “the percentage of persons with secondary education

completed or higher”. In the breakdowns for each variable in Table 1 there is, of course,

some degree of arbitrariness: they are made by taking into account the average point in

each distribution, as well as the dispersion around the mean. But there is also some sub-

stantive sense in the breakdowns: for example, we consider “new”/“young” democracies

those of 24 years or less since the last democratic transition and the middle-aged democ-

racies those between 26 and 41 years old. The long consolidated democracies have been

so for more than 41 years. Moreover, when we look at the countries/years in each group,

69 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


we see that the partition makes sense politically. Similar notes could be made about the

partition concerning “the level of development of societies”. However, we should bear in

mind that our dataset has a larger number of new democracies (13) than middle-aged (3)

or long consolidated democracies (4). We can see that in terms of the level of development,

there are many more cases with middle (7) and high (9) levels of development (16) than

with low levels (4). Moreover, we can say that there is a reasonable spread of different

regimes across each level of social development. Thus, although new democracies are in

greater quantity, we are convinced that both the richness and uniqueness of the CNEP

I-III data and the reasonable variation in macro independent variables allow us to proceed

with our analysis.

Finally, we have a third set of two hypotheses that apply only to the recognition of the

location of parties in the LR scale (LR PP):

Hypothesis on party size and the overall level of LR recognition and use across coun-

tries: the higher the (electoral) size of the two parties under recognition taken together,

the higher the overall level of recognition of parties’ location on the LR scale.

Hypothesis on party size and the individual level determination of LR recognition

and use across countries: the higher the (electoral) size of the two parties under recogni-

tion taken together, the higher the recognition determination of parties’ location on the

LR scale by the independent variables in each country.

We expect this effect because larger parties have more chances of being recognized,

especially by the more educated, politically interested and older voters, as well as by those

with more media exposure and stronger partisan attachments. First, because they are

probably older than the smaller parties. Second, because the policy proposals of larger

parties usually receive more media attention. Third, because larger parties usually have

more resources to publicize their actions and mobilize voters.

Data, Methods and Operationalization

In order to accomplish our objectives and test the hypotheses, we use as many coun-

tries and election surveys from the CNEP I-III dataset as possible, a solution that is vari-

able according to the different objectives and information available. We usually use around

12-13 and 17-19 cases.

To estimate the impact of macro-level items on the country level of determination in

LR recognition we use the multi-level technique known as “two-step hierarchical regres-

sion” (Achen, 2005; Jusko and Shively, 2005). At the individual level (first step), we use

logistic regressions to explain variation in our dependent variables in each country. At the

70 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


macro level (second step), we pick up the regression coefficients from the first step and

consider them as our dependent variables.

First, as Jusko and Shively (2005: 12-13) note, the “two-step strategy draws heavily

on the statistical foundations of the hierarchical linear models... but maintains many of the

advantages of both portioning and pooling strategies... And it accomplishes this without

loss of efficiency as compared to pooling strategies”, and with more flexibility as we will

explain below. In the first step, we estimate separate logistic regressions to explain the LR

recognition in each one of the 12-19 cases. Education, Political Interest, Age, Media Expo-

sure, and Strength of Party Identification are the independent variables at level one. The

regression coefficients from the first step are then taken as the dependent variables for the

second step, where the independent variables are system level, and the cases (“N”) are the

12-19 countries/election surveys. We acknowledge that a larger N would have been better,

but it is important to stress three things. First, while ideally N should be greater than or

equal to 30, statistical simulations for N=10 reveal “the regression coefficients and low-

est-level variance components are again estimated without bias”, and only “the group-level

variance was over-estimated, with a bias up to 25 per cent” (Maas and Hox, 2005: 90,

91). Since we have 12-19 groups, and are mainly interested in explaining variation in the

regression coefficients, we can conclude the sample size at step two is adequate, even if

far from ideal. Second, in cross-country comparative political analysis, larger samples for

the second step are rather rare, but robust findings have been found with 26 (Jusko and

Shively, 2005), 16 (Lachat, 2008), 15 (Weldon, 2006), and 13 groups (Freire and Kivis-

tik, 2013). Moreover, studies about LR among the mass publics usually rely on an even

smaller number of cases/countries in level 1: for example, around 13 and 6 cases in Freire

and Kivistik (2013) (using CNEP III data); 13 cases in Freire (2006a, 2006b); 13 cases

in Knutsen (1997) (the latter three studies using European Value Study 1990-1999 data).

Third, by using the robust standard errors procedure we can be reasonably sure about the

robustness of our findings.

Additionally, when we want to explain cross country variation in the overall level of

LR recognition (self and parties) and in the overall level of individual determination of

LR recognition, we will proceed in yet another way. Using the “percentage of persons that

can locate themselves (or the parties) in the LR scale” as our dependent variable, we then

regress these values on a set of independent variables. Or using R2s for each country, from

the individual level models to explain LR recognition, we then regress these values on a

set of independent variables.

71 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Left-Right Recognition Across 14 Countries from Five Continents

To begin with, we will analyse LR recognition across countries. First, we will de-

scribe the material from each country, then we will proceed to testing the hypotheses at

the micro and macro levels.

Table 2. Left-right self-placement (LR recognition) in five continents

Country (1)

Percentage of persons that placed themselves in LR scale

(2)

Country (1)

Percentage of persons that placed themselves in LR scale but collapsing «false centrists»

(3)

US92 98 IT96 74

UR94 96 IT06 71

CL00 95 UR04 66

GR04 95 MZ04 65

SP93 95 HU06 63

CL93 90 UR94 61

HU06 90 US92 60

GR96 89 SP93 60

UR04 89 US04 54

IT06 88 GR04 54

PT05 88 GR96 53

BU96 87 CL00 51

IT96 84 SP04 50

SP04 80 SA04 49

MZ04 76 BU96 49

HU98 76 CL93 48

US04 75 PT05 43

SA04 70 HU98 43

HK98 69 MX06 35

AR07 53 AR07 30

MX06 46 HK98 20

Notes:

(1) Countries organized by descending order of overall level of recognition.

(2) Can place themselves in scale (values 1-10); 0 – DK, NA, Missing values.

(3) Can place themselves in scale (values 1-4 and 7-10); 0 – values 5-6 plus DK, NA, Missing values.

Values -1 and system missing are treated as DK, except in the case of CL93, IT06, MX06 PT05, US92, US04 and UR94, where they have

been left out of the analysis.

The first measure to evaluate LR recognition in a society is the proportion of people

who have placed themselves on the LR scale. As we can see (Table 2), the percentages vary

72 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


a lot across countries. The general level of recognition accounts for more than three-quar-

ters of the respondents and in Mexico, less than half of the respondents. So we can con-

clude that the concept is known at large over the world, like many other studies did before

us (Dalton, 2006; Gunther and Kuan, 2007; Noël and Thérien, 2008). The expected ten-

dency should be that long consolidated democracies have a greater proportion of recog-

nizers than newer ones and that the level of recognition is increasing with the passage of

time in new democracies (Freire, 2006a), but the data confirms this tendency with some

deviations. The lowest levels of ideological recognition are in Latin America (Mexico: 46;

Argentina 53 percent), Asia (Hong Kong: 69), Africa (South Africa: 70; Mozambique: 73),

and Eastern Europe (Hungary: 76). But some consolidated democracies in some years (US

2004, Spain 2004, Italy 1996) are not that much above the level of the new democracies

just mentioned. Of course, there are always some short-term factors that explain variation

in the same country across relatively short periods of time. For example, we know that the

case of Italy, due to the strong turbulence in the Italian party system since 1994, is perhaps

an example of that situation (Freire, 2006a). This is probably the case also for the US 2004

and Spain 2004, namely because data from US 1992 and Spain 1993 are much more in line

with our expectations.

In any case, taking all countries together, we can still say that in older democracies

(in Europe and North America: US 1992) the average level of LR recognition is much

higher than in newer democracies in Africa, Asia and Latin America: long consolidated

and middle-aged democracies are overwhelmingly at the top of Table 2, first column. Nev-

ertheless, some people might argue that central categories in a LR scale are often used by

non-sophisticated citizens as a kind of “no answer” (NA)/“don’t know (DK)”: “false cen-

trists”. To avoid possibly misleading results, in columns three and four of Table 2 we pres-

ent the same result as before but after collapsing the probably “false centrists” (categories

5 and 6 in 1-10 LR scale). The results seem to be even clearer than before, but exceptions

still remain: at the bottom of column 4 we find mainly new democracies, but Portugal is

also there; at the top, among long consolidated democracies, we also find Mozambique,

Uruguay and Hungary. Nevertheless, to have a clearer picture about this we need to pro-

ceed with the regression analysis. But before that, we analyse LR recognition in terms of

the LR location of one or two of the largest parties in each country (Table 3).

73 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Table 3. Left-right recognition of parties’ location in the LR scale in five continents

Country (1)

Percentage of persons that placed one of the two largest parties in the LR scale

(2)

Country (1)

Percentage of persons that placed the two largest parties in the LR scale

(2)

GR96 98 GR96 96

GR04 96 SP93 95

SP93 96 IT06 94

IT06 96 GR04 92

CL93 95 UR04 92

UR94 93 CL93 91

IT96 93 UR94 87

UR04 93 SP04 87

SP04 89 HU06 87

HU06 89 PT05 85

PT05 87 IT96 82

MZ04 84 US04 74

BU96 78 BU96 71

US04 77 MX06 69

SA04 77 MZ04 66

AR07 75 SA04 64

MX06 71 AR07 62

HK98 64 HK98 56

Notes: (1) Countries organized by descending order of the overall level of recognition. (2) Can place the two largest parties in the LR scale (values 1-10); (1) Can place one of the two largest parties in the LR scale (values 1-10); (0) – DK, NA, Missing values. Values -1 and system missing are treated as DK, except in the case of CL93, IT06, MX06, PT05, US92, US04, and UR94 where they have been left out from the analysis.

In Table 3 we present the percentage of respondents in each country that have placed

the two largest parties on the LR scale. It is remarkable that in almost all countries (ex-

cept Hong Kong, Mozambique, South Africa, and Argentina) more than two-thirds of the

respondents have been able to do that. Of course, in this case we are not dealing with “cor-

rect” or “wrong” placements, for example, left-wing parties that are located on the right,

or vice-versa. Nevertheless, the difference between older and newer democracies seems to

somehow be present again when using this measure. Countries with relatively long dem-

ocratic traditions (Greece 1996 and 2004, Spain 1993, Italy 2006) seem to be well repre-

sented among the group, which has the highest levels of recognition of parties’ LR location,

and those with few democratic years (Bulgaria, Hong Kong, Mexico, Mozambique, South

Africa) have lower levels of recognition, but several exceptional cases are still present.

74 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


The results of the OLS regressions to explain cross country variation in the overall

level of recognition reveal the following (Table 4) 4: first, in terms of self LR recognition,

freedom of press and age of democratic regime work in the expected direction – countries

with more freedom of press (lower values in the Freedom House’s scale of freedoms) and

with longer time elapsed since the last democratic transition do show higher levels of

recognition. However, the age of the democratic regime is only significant when the de-

pendent variable is self LR recognition and “false centrists” were collapsed. Conversely,

freedom of press always works in the expected direction and in a significant way.

For self LR recognition when “false centrists” are collapsed, there is a factor that works

contrary to expectations: the higher the level of education in a country, the lower the level of

recognition. It is not easy to explain this, nevertheless, we can conclude that both political

socialization in the democratic regime (self) and mass media political intermediation (self

and parties) are factors that have a significant effect on the overall level of LR recognition.

Table 4. Explaining macro level variation in the overall level of LR recognition: self and

parties’ location on LR scale – OLS regressions

Dependent variables: percentage for overall level of recognition

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Independent variables LR recognition self LR recognition self (collapsing “false

centrists”)

LRRecognition major

party

LRRecognition two

major parties

Democratic regime 0.0483 0.1606** 0.0091 -0.0021

(Years) (0.580) (2.541) (0.143) (-0.025)

Freedom of press -16.2925* -3.4878 -8.9621* -13.6914*

(-1.971) (-0.603) (-1.977) (-2.170)

Pop. Secondary educ. -0.1680 -0.4839** -0.2143 -0.1014

or higher (%) (-0.807) (-2.273) (-1.307) (-0.500)

Party size - - -0.1419 -0.2207

(-0.835) (-0.923)

Constant 108.6837*** 74.0741*** 115.0647*** 115.6894***

(7.966) (5.805) (10.992) (7.714)

N 19 19 16 16

R2 0.318 0.337 0.406 0.362

Notes: 1) Hong Kong collapsed because it is not a democracy; other cases collapsed due to missing data in the macro variables. 2) The dependent variables are the percentage of respondents in each country/year that are able to place themselves or the two largest parties on the LR scale. 3) The robust standard errors procedure is used: robust statistics in parenthesis. 4) Non-standardized regression coefficients and probabilities associated with significance tests are shown in the table, beside R2 and N. 5) *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

4 From Table 4 to Table 6.3 we present the error margins for the estimations of the coefficients as: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. This means the probability of rejecting H0 when the null hypothesis (i.e., b/regression coefficient = 0) is true. Thus, we only consider rejection of the null hypothesis when the probability of a false rejection (i.e., the error margin) is below 1% (0.01), 5% (0.05) or 10% (0.1).

75 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Table 5.1. Explaining individual LR recognition (self) across countries

LR recognition:1, yes, 0, no

LR recognition: 1, yes, 0, no (with false centrists: 5-6)

Variables B Wald B Wald

Italy 06

Constant 1.01*** 30.17 .18 1.55

Interest 1.56*** 68.38 .81*** 58.60

60+ years -.66** 7.50 -.39* 5.19

Nagelkerke R square .24 - .13 -

N of cases 814 - 814 -

Hungary 98

Constant -.84*** 15.50 -.42*** 14.26

Education .71*** 27.36 n.s. n.s.

Interest .91*** 69.00 .73*** 94.92

45-59 years .54** 8.40 n.s. n.s.

Nagelkerke R square .21 .21 -

N of cases 1155 1149 -

US 04

Constant -2.59*** 58.57 -2.99*** 91.83

Education .95*** 52.85 .82*** 52.41

Interest .74*** 70.95 .55*** 48.77


N of cases 1190 - 1190 -

Portugal 05

Constant .52*** 2.39 -.65*** 28.33

Education .37* 4.23 n.s. n.s.

Interest .77*** 47.47 .24*** 12.23

60+ years -.43** 3.63 n.s. n.s.


N of cases 1087 1087 -

Notes: 1) binary logistic regression, forward stepwise method, countries separately; 2) *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p <0.05; 3) Forward stepwise method: only variables with significant impact are considered and presented in the table. 4) In case of age, the 29 years or younger group is the reference group. 5) Countries ordered according to descending strength of the Pseudo R2. 6) Dependent variable: 1) LR recognition: 1, yes, 0, no (cannot place self on scale plus NA and DK); 2) Idem but with “false centrists” (5-6) also as 0, no.

76 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89






Hungary 06

Constant -.32 .34 -.42*** 14.26

Education .91** 11.45 n.s. n.s.

Interest .80*** 38.08 .73*** 94.92

60+ years -.47* 3.96 n.s n.s.


N of cases 1148 - 1149 -

Uruguay 04

Constant .40 2.07 .25 5.65


Interest .84*** 47.32 .30*** 21.31


N of cases 1127 - 1126 -

Spain 04 Constant .49*** 19.21 -.60*** 33.81

Interest .89*** 82.88 .50*** 50.16


N of cases 1190 1190 -

Chile 93 Constant .42 1.53


Interest .40* 4.97 .38*** 20.35

30-44 years n.s. n.s. -.36* 4.87

45-59 years n.s. n.s. -.66** 11.40


N of cases 823 - 823 -

Hong Kong 98

Constant -.69** 11.72 -2.25*** 89.21

Education .64*** 36.67 28* 6.35

Interest .33*** 15.43 .25** 7.87

45-59 years .53** 9.33 .56** 10.29


N of cases 1167 - 1167 -

Notes: See table 5.1.

77 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89






Argentina 07

Constant -1.16*** 43.56 -1.89*** 85.44

Education .52*** 38.87 .259** 7.73

Interest .24*** 13.22 .387*** 32.26


N of cases 1183 - 1183 -

Italy 96

Constant .04 0.03 .70*** 24.71


Interest .53*** 26.66 .41*** 24.04

45-59 years n.s. n.s. -.40** 6.80

60+ years n.s. n.s. -.35* 3.91

Nagelkerke R square .07 - -

N of cases 1200 - -

Greece 96

Constant 1.47*** 130.18 -.39*** 15.70

Interest .56*** 30.33 .33*** 32.69

60+ years n.s. n.s. .30* 4.58


N of cases 1198 - 1198 -

Spain 93 Constant 2.25*** 207.62 -.14 2.03

Interest .90*** 20.66 .49*** 43.82

60+ years n.s. n.s. .39** 7.41


N of cases 1198 - 1198 -

Mozambique 04 Constant .50*** 13.60 -.48* 4.45

Interest .39*** 37.96 .34*** 32.29

Education n.s. n.s. .43** 8.51

60+ years n.s. n.s. -.58* 5.18


N of cases 1068 - 1068 -

Notes: See table 5.1

78 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89






South Africa 04

Constant -.34 2.57 -.68** 11.66

Education .54*** 22.60 .23* 5.17

Interest .20** 10.76 .20*** 13.95


N of cases 1188 - 1188 -

Bulgaria 96

Constant .96*** 17.75 -.72*** 49.62


Interest .20* 4.42 .50*** 67.34


N of cases 1195 - 1195 -

Mexico 06

Constant -.89*** 14.27 -.89*** 26.27


Interest .17** 7.19 .15* 5.03


N of cases 624 - 624 -

Uruguay 94 Constant 2.08*** 20.74 .08 .59

Interest n.s n.s. .32*** 27.05



N of cases 788 - 1187 -

Notes: See table 5.1

The findings about which individual level variables have an effect on self LR recog-

nition are in Tables 5.1-5.3.5 First, when we compare the explanatory power of the model,

5 When the dependent variable is a dichotomy (1, the respondent is able to locate him/herself in the LR scale, 0 otherwise), like in Tables 5.1-5.4, we use Logistic (L. Reg.) instead of OLS regressions. In L. Reg. we estimate instead the probability of success of a phenomenon (1, the respondent is able to place him/herself in the LR scale). Thus, the relationship between the independent and dependent variables is not linear – it is better described by an S. So, a logarithmic transformation is needed to transform a non-linear relation into a linear one: this is done by the logit (Jovell, 1995). The regression constant (a) represents the value logit of the probability of an event happening when the value of the independent variable (X) is zero. The regression coefficients (b) now represent the change in the odds ratios’ logit for an event to happen, for one unit change in the independent variable (X). The odds ratios represent the ratio of the probability of success for a specific event (LR recognition) vis-à-vis the probability of failure for that same event (LR non-recognition). Because it is easier to

79 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


it seems that the effect of the sophistication level of LR recognition is usually larger in

Europe and in the US than in countries from other regions of the world, although with

some exceptions. It seems to indicate that in Europe and the US we find our expectations

more easily (more educated, politically interested and older people are usually more able

to recognize the LR divide), and that in other regions of the globe levels of recognition,

or a lack of them, are socially more diffuse. Thus, in these latter countries, political and

cultural factors probably weigh more than in Europe and the US. In the case of Europe,

Bulgaria is the exception, with one of the lowest levels of determination. But this might

mean that the lower explanatory power of the model that we find in non-European and

non-North American regions can also be found in some new democracies from Eastern

Europe (Freire, 2006a). Anyhow, it is clear that the effect of the sophistication varies a lot:

from 0.02 in Uruguay 1994 to 0.24 in Italy 2006. When we consider an alternate treat-

ment of the dependent variable by collapsing “false centrists”, the major effect is to usually

depress the strength of the R2 (columns 5 and 6 of Tables 5.1 to 5.4).

If we look at the variables’ impact we see that quite often the only variables that have

a significant impact on LR recognition are education and/or political interest. The only

countries where age is more important than education are Portugal in 2005 and Italy in

2006. Other elements worth highlighting are the following: first, age is often irrelevant;

second, in some cases (Hungary 2006, Italy, Chile 1993, and Portugal) the effect of age

is negative. This means that the oldest group (AgeD3: 60 years old or more) in these

countries is less aware of LR than the youngest cohort (18-29 years old), a syndrome that

was found to be characteristic of new European democracies elsewhere (Freire, 2006a).

However, in CNEP I-III this seems not to be the case: first, there are long consolidated

or middle-aged democracies with a negative effect, and we cannot see the same results in

several other new democracies of the CNEP I-III sample. Overall, however, we would say

that the results point in the expected direction: more education, age and political interest

are usually associated with higher levels of self LR recognition. However, the effect of age

is variable across countries.

interpret, we usually consider the inverse of that measure (eb), which allows us to read the coefficient as the change in the odds ratio of a certain event happening associated with one unit change in the independent variable (X). Since the dependent variable is not an interval variable, we cannot make estimations for regression coefficients using ordinary least squares (OLS), so the maximum-likelihood method is used instead. The Pseudo R2 is the equivalent measure for the level of variance explained (R2) in OLS regressions, even if less robust. Finally, the Wald statistic allows us to see which variables have more importance to explain variations in the dependent variable by testing the null hypothesis (b = 0).

80 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Of course, one could reasonably argue that the previous models are underspecified:

media exposure and strength of party identification are missing. This omission is because

if we want to include these two extra factors, we pass from the 18 cases under scrutiny

to 13. Nevertheless, we performed new regressions for the 13 countries with the relevant

variables testing the effect of “media exposure” and “strength of party identification”, be-

sides the other three variables (due to spatial limitations, these tables are not shown here).

There are basically three conclusions. First, the impact of the new independent variables

is always relevant and the R2s usually increase. Second, both factors boost the level of LR

recognition. Third, when both are available, both have an independent and significant im-

pact, but in any case these factors (or at least one of them) appear among the most relevant

factors to explain individual level variation in LR recognition. Thus, both media political

intermediation and political socialization have an impact on LR recognition.

Due to spatial limitations, we cannot show the tests of the models to explain in-

dividual level variation in the recognition of the two largest parties’ LR position across

countries. Contrary to what we find in terms of self LR recognition, in the case of parties’

LR recognition we now find a mix of long consolidated (US 2004) and new democracies

(Bulgaria, Hong Kong, South Africa) with the highest R2; and at the bottom of the rank-

ing, with the lowest R2, we find both new (Mexico, Uruguay 2004, Spain 1993) and mid-

dle-aged (Greece 2004) democracies. Thus, we have a more mixed situation in terms of the

impact of the age of the democratic regime and level of development on LR recognition.

About the variables that have a significant impact on the recognition of parties’ location

on the LR divide, we conclude that the pattern of determination is rather similar to the

one found for LR SP.

81 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Table 6.1. Explaining cross-national variation in individual level determination

of left-right recognition (self and two major parties)

Dependent variables:R2 for individual level determination of LR recognition in each country

(1) (2) (3) (4)

LR recognition (self) explained by 3

variables

LR recognition (self)explained by 5

variables

LR recognition (two major parties)

explained by 3 variables

LR recognition (two major parties)

explained by 5 variables

Democratic regime 0.0008* 0.0008*** 0.0011** 0.0012**

(Years) (2.110) (4.108) (2.518) (2.790)

Freedom of press -0.0096 -0.0902** -0.0063 -0.0722*

(-0.233) (-2.696) (-0.209) (-2.014)

Pop. Secondary educ. -0.0007 -0.0015** -0.0012 -0.0024**

(-0.674) (-2.881) (-1.076) (-2.438)

Party Size - - -0.0019 -0.0018

- - (-1.681) (-1.237)

Constant 0.1162* 0.2992*** 0.2249** 0.3993***

(2.156) (3.850) (2.415) (3.773)

N 17 12 17 12

R2 0.248 0.535 0.435 0.633

Notes: 1) The robust standard errors procedure is used: robust statistics in parenthesis. 2) Non-standardized regression coefficients and probabilities associated with significance tests are shown in the table, beside R2 and N. 3) Individual level determination of LR recognition by 3 variables (education, political interest, and age) or 5 variables (education, political interest, age, media exposure, and strength of party identification). 4) *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

82 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Table 6.2. Explaining cross-national variation in self left-right recognition – 2nd Step of

the Two Step Hierarchical Regression (Beta coefficients) – only for countries that have

all independent variables at the individual level

Dependent variables: regression coefficients for sophistication model (self)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Education Political interest D1-age d2-age d3-age

Democratic regime 0.0002 0.0045 -0.0008 -0.0019 -0.0032

(Years) (0.110) (1.744) (-0.302) (-0.808) (-1.083)

Freedom of press -0.2553* -0.0698 -0.1401 -0.1949 -0.3955

(-1.882) (-0.262) (-0.601) (-1.172) (-1.493)

Pop. Secondary educ. 0.0066 -0.0103 0.0080 0.0042 0.0148*

(1.323) (-1.539) (0.966) (0.687) (1.874)

Constant 0.5654*** 0.9809*** -0.0857 0.2838 0.0296

(3.282) (3.523) (-0.283) (0.842) (0.084)

N 17 17 17 17 17

R2 0.267 0.220 0.132 0.078 0.232

Notes: 1) The robust standard errors procedure is used: robust statistics in parenthesis. 2) Non-standardized regression coefficients and probabilities associated with significance tests are shown in the table, beside R2 and N. 3) *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

83 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


Table 6.3. Explaining cross-national variation in parties’ left-right recognition – 2nd Step

of the Two Step Hierarchical Regression (Beta coefficients) – only for countries that have

all independent variables at the individual level

Dependent variables: regression coefficients for sophistication model (parties)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Independent variables Education Political interest d1-age d2-age d3-age

Democratic regime 0.0004 0.0012** -0.0003 0.0004 -0.0001

(Years) (0.857) (2.756) (-0.798) (0.605) (-0.180)

Freedom of press 0.0195 0.0332 -0.0287 0.0244 -0.0402

(0.501) (0.889) (-0.834) (0.508) (-0.619)

Pop. Secondary educ. 0.0023 -0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.0035

or higher (%) (1.711) (-0.363) (0.377) (0.115) (1.550)

Party size 0.0006 0.0023 0.0010 0.0005 -0.0003

(0.452) (1.719) (0.900) (0.303) (-0.146)

Constant -0.0308 -0.0697 0.0078 -0.0525 -0.1116

(-0.324) (-0.625) (0.072) (-0.303) (-0.688)

N 16 16 16 16 16

R2 0.373 0.610 0.119 0.066 0.243

Notes: 1) The robust standard errors procedure is used: robust statistics in parenthesis. 2) Non-standardized regression coefficients and probabilities associated with significance tests are shown in the table, beside R2 and N. 3) *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Let us now pass to explaining cross national variations in a systematic way. First, we

take the country by country R2s (from the models to explain individual level determination

of LR recognition) as our dependent variables and the macro-level items as our indepen-

dent variables. From these tests we can conclude that LR recognition (self and parties) is

always more socially and politically determined in long consolidated (or middle-aged de-

mocracies) than in new democracies. Freedom of press also has the expected effect (more

freedom of press implies more determined profiles of LR recognition), but these effects are

only significant when the fully specified models (i.e., those including education, political

interest, age, media exposure, and party identification) are taken into account. Finally,

unexpected results are present again for education: lower levels of determination in LR

recognition in societies with higher levels of education.

Finally, we come to the second step of the hierarchical regressions, i.e., now we want

to explain cross country variation in the patterns of determination of LR recognition for

each and every predictor (“education”, “political interest” and “age”) – Tables 6.2-6.3.

Our dependent variables are now the regression coefficients for the impact of “education”,

84 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


“political interest” and “age” on LR recognition in each country, and our independent

variables (second step) are the macro-level items. Overall, what we can see in Table 6.2

for LR self recognition is that there are only two significant macro-level factors. Freedom

of press boosts the impact of “education” on LR self recognition. Countries’ overall levels

of education boost the impact of “D3 - age” upon LR self recognition: in countries with

larger percentages of persons with a secondary education or more, the oldest cohort (“D3 -

age”) has a significantly higher level of LR recognition than the youngest cohort (reference

group: 18-29 years old).

In the case of parties’ LR recognition, only the variable “age of the democratic re-

gime” has a significant effect, and only on the impact of “political interest”: in older de-

mocracies any individual “political interest” has more chances of increasing the level of

parties’ LR recognition than in new democracies.

Summing up, we conclude that although cross country variation on the strength of

the impact of the sophistication model (Tables 5.1-5.4; Table 6.1) and in the overall level of

LR recognition (Table 4) can be clearly explained by macro level factors (age of democratic

regime, freedom of press, and education), the case is less clear when we want to explain

cross country variation in the impact of each individual level explanatory factor (Tables

6.2 and 6.3).

Concluding Remarks

We tried to understand and explain, both across individuals and countries from five

continents, the level of recognition of the LR divide at the mass level. Previous studies

have concentrated either on European cases or, when using a more global approach, on

a description of patterns across countries/regions, and were less focused on explaining

those differences. Thus, the present study contributes with unique data and approaches to

the understanding of the use of the LR divide across the globe.

In terms of LR recognition (both for self and parties), we used CNEP I-III data from

around 18-21 cases/countries in five continents. In line with previous studies, we found

that the LR divide is widely recognized around the globe, although usually less in non-Eu-

ropean and non-North American regions. What was less known was that at the individual

level, the usual suspects (the sophistication model: “education”, “political interest”, “age”,

“strength of party identification”, and “media exposure”) were valuable to explain individ-

ual level variation in LR recognition, not only in Europe and North America (US) but also

in Asia (Hong Kong), Africa (South Africa and Mozambique) and in Latin America (sev-

eral countries). Thus, this pinpoints the country differences in overall levels of LR recog-

nition and might be due to compositional differences in the aggregate levels of education,

85 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


political interest, media exposure, and party identification in the different polities, and

also that some convergence between countries might be expected in future, when and if

these compositional differences are reduced.

Moreover, we found that cross country variation in the total strength of the impact

of the sophistication model (R2) and in the overall level of LR recognition can be more

easily explained by macro level factors (age of democratic regime, freedom of press, party

size, education) than when we want to explain cross country variation in the impact of

each individual level explanatory factor. In the first case, the overall level of LR recogni-

tion is more dependent on macro level factors: age of the democratic regime (only for self

LR recognition when collapsing “false centrists”) and freedom of press (for all dependent

variables: self and parties) both boost the overall level of LR recognition in a country.

But in the second set of situations, concerning cross country variation in the impact

of each individual level explanatory factor, we found that in terms of self LR recognition

macro level indicators only have an impact on “education” and “age: oldest cohort vs.

youngest cohort”: in more free media systems (for “education”) and in more educated

societies (age), “education and age” have more of an impact on individual level self LR

recognition, respectively. In the case of parties’ LR recognition, we concluded that in long

consolidated (or middle-aged) democracies, “political interest” has more impact on LR

recognition than in new democracies. Thus, in the latter polities the determination of in-

dividual level parties’ LR recognition is less dependent upon political interest and is there-

fore more diffuse, i.e., more dependent upon macro-level political and cultural factors.

Overall, however, we found that LR recognition (for self and parties) is more socially

and politically determined (at the individual level) in long consolidated democracies and

in systems with more freedom of press than in new democracies and in systems with not

so free media systems. Thus, both the age of the democratic regime and freedom of press

explain cross country variation in the individual level determination of LR recognition

across countries. Consequently, there are reasons to expect some convergence between

countries when democratic regimes (from non-Western parts of the world) are more con-

solidated, there is more freedom of the press, and the level of social development is strong-

er. Moreover, the evidence shown, concerning both the individual level and macro level of

determination of LR recognition and use, gives clear indications of the heuristic value of

the LR scale for comparing mass political attitudes and behaviour worldwide.

To conclude, some cues for future research are due. We found that not only is LR

widely recognized and used across countries from five continents, although usually more

so in Europe and North America, but also the individual level determinants LR recognition

are heuristically useful world-wide. And we also found that both the sophistication models

(for LR recognition) work better in long consolidated (or middle-aged) democracies and

86 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


in freer societies. But does this really mean that in the long term new democracies will

converge with the long consolidated (or middle-aged) ones? This is certainly an empirical

question that cannot be answered here. Moreover, we acknowledge that both the micro

and macro models are relatively poor in terms of explanatory factors considered, but this is

due to the limitations of the CNEP I-III survey data available, as well as the small number

of cases at the macro level and the research design adopted (a comparative variable orient-

ed and synchronic approach). There are clear tasks for future research either using more

cases or more in-depth historical approaches based on case studies.

Revised by Priscila Moura

Submitted in May 2012

Accepted in August 2013

References

ACHEN, Christopher. (2005), “Two-Step Hierarchical Estimation: Beyond Regression Analysis”. Political Analysis, vol. 13, nº 4, pp. 447-456.

ARON, Raymond. (2002), L’Opium des Intellectueles, Paris: Hachette.

BARNES, Samuel H. (2002), “Left and Right in Old and New Democracies”. Central European Political Science Review, vol. 3, nº7, pp. 6-15.

BARNES, Samuel H.; McDONOUGH, Peter; PINA, António L. (1985), “The development of partisanship in new democracies: the case of Spain”. American Journal of Political Science, nº 29, pp. 695-720.

BECK, Paul A.; DALTON, Russell J.; GREENE, Steven; HUCKFELDT, Robert. (2002), “The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices”. The American Political Science Review, vol.96, nº1, pp. 57-73.

BELL, Daniel. (2000), The End of Ideology. On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

BOBBIO, Norberto. (1994), Direita e Esquerda. Lisbon: Presença.

CAMPBELL, Angus; CONVERSE, Philip E.; MILLER, Warren E.; STOKES, Donald E. (1980), The American Voter. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

CARAMANI, Daniele (2004), The Nationalization of Politics. The Formation of National Electorates and Party Systems in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

CONVERSE, Philip E. (1964), The nature of belief systems in mass publics, In: Apter, David. Ideology and Discontent. New York: The Free Press.

CONVERSE, Philip E. (1969), “Of time and partisan stability”. Comparative Political Studies, vol. 2, pp. 139-171.

87 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


COLOMER, Josep M. and ESCATEL, Luis E. (2005), The Left-Right Dimension in Latin America. UPF Economics and Business Working Paper, nº 813.

DALTON, Russell J. (2006). Social Modernization and the End of Ideology Debate: Patterns of Ideological Polarization. Japanese Journal of Political Science. vol.7, nº1, pp. 1–22.

DALTON, Russell J.; FARREL, David M.; MCALLISTER, Ian. (2011), Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

DIX, Robert H. (1992), “Democratization and the institutionalization of Latin American Political Parties”, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 24, nº4, pp. 488-511.

EVANS, Geoffrey and WHITEFIELD, Stephen. (1998), The evolution of left and right in post-Soviet Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 50, nº6, pp. 1023-1042.

FRANKLIN, Mark.; MACKIE, Thomas.; VALEN, Henry (eds.). (1992), Electoral Change. Responses to Evolving Social and Attitudinal Structures in Western Countries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

FREIRE, André. (2006a), Left-Right Ideological Identities in New Democracies: Greece, Portugal and Spain in the Western European Context”, Pôle Sud – Revue de Science Politique de l’Europe Méridionale, nº 25, vol. II, pp. 153-173.

FREIRE, André. (2006b), Bringing Social Identities Back In: The Social Anchors of Left-Right Orientation in Western Europe. International Political Science Review, vol. 27, nº4, pp. 359-378.

FREIRE, André (2008). Party Polarization and Citizens’ Left-Right Orientations. Party Politics, 14 (2), pp.189-209.

FREIRE, André and BELCHIOR, Ana M. (2011), What left and right means to Portuguese citizens. Comparative European Politics, vol. 9, nº2, pp. 145–167.

FREIRE, André and KIVISTIK, Kats (2013), «Western and Non-Western Meaning of the left-right divide across four continents», Journal of Political Ideologies, vol.18, nº 2, pp. 171-199.

FUCHS, Dieter and KLINGEMANN, Hans-Dieter (1990), “The Left-Right Schema”. In: JENNINGS, M. Kent et al, Continuities in Political Action, Berlin de Gruyter, pp. 203-234.

FUKUYAMA, Francis (1989), “The end of history”. The National Interest, 16.

GIDDENS, Anthony (1996), Más Allá de la Izquierda y la Derecha. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra.

GUNTHER, Richard and KUAN, Hsin-chi (2007), “Value Cleavages and Partisan Conflict”. In: GUNTHER, Richard, MONTERO, José Ramon and PUHLE, Hans-Jürgen. Democracy, Intermediation, and Voting on Four Continents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 255-320.

GUNTHER, Richard and MONTERO, José R. (2001), «The Anchors of Partisanship: A Comparative Analysis of Voting Behaviour in Four Southern European Countries”. In: DIAMANDOUROS, Nikiforos and GUNTHER, Richard (orgs.) (2001), Parties, Politics, and Democracy in New Southern Europe. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 83-152.

88 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


HEYWOOD, Andrew (2003), Political Ideologies. An Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

HUBER, John and INGLEHART, Ronald. (1995), “Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies”, Party Politics, vol. 1, nº 73, p. 111.

INGLEHART, Ronald and KLINGEMANN, Hans D. (1976), Party identification, ideological preference and the left-right dimension among Western mass publics. In: BUDGE, Ian ed. Party identification and Beyond, London and New York, Wiley.

JOU, Willy (2010), “The heuristic value of the left-right schema in East Asia”, International Political Science Review, vol. 31, nº3, pp. 366-394.

JOVELL, Albert J. (1995), Análisis de Regresión Logística.Madrid: CIS.

JUSKO, Karen L. and SHIVELY, W. Philips. (2005), “Applying a Two-Step Strategy to the Analysis of Cross-National Public Opinion Data”. Political Analysis, vol.13, nº4, pp. 327-344.

KIECOLT, K. Jill and NATHAN, Laura E. (1985), Secondary Analysis of Survey Data. London: Sage.

KITSCHELT, Herbert and HELLEMANS, Staf. (1990), The left-right semantics and the new politics cleavage. Comparative Political Studies. vol.23, nº2: pp. 210-238.

KITSCHELT, Herbert; MANSFELDOVA, Zdenka; MARKOWSKI, Radoslaw; TOKA, Gabor (eds.). (1999), Post-Communist Party Systems. Competition, Representation, and Inter-Party Cooperation. NY: Cambridge University Press.

KLINGEMANN, Hans-Dieter (1979), “Measuring ideological conceptualizations”, “The background of ideological conceptualization”. In: BARNES, Samuel et al, Political Action. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 215-253, 255-277.

KNUTSEN, Oddbjørn (1997), “The Partisan and the Value-Based Components of Left-right Self-placement: A Comparative Study”. International Political Science Review, vol. 18, pp.191–225.

KNUTSEN, Oddbjørn (1998). The strength of the partisan component of left-right Identity. A comparative longitudinal study of left-right party polarization in eight West European countries. Party Politics, 4, pp. 5-31.

KNUTSEN, Oddbjørn and SCARBROUGH, Elinor. (1995), “Cleavage politics”. In: DETH, J. W. Van and SCARBROUGH, E. The Impact of Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 492-524.

LACHAT, Romain (2008), “The impact of party polarization on ideological voting”. Electoral Studies, vol. 27, pp. 687-698.

LAPONCE, Jean A. (1981), Left and Right. The Topography of Political Perceptions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

LEE, Aie-Rie. (2007), “Value Cleavages, Issues, and Partisanship in East Asia”, Journal of East Asian Studies. vol.7, nº2, pp. 251-274.

89 (2013) 7 (3) 61 - 89


LIPSET, Seymour M. (1987), “¿El fin de toda ideología?” and “Un concepto y su historia: el fin de la ideología”. In LIPSET, Seymour M. El Hombre Político. Las Bases Sociales de la Política. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, pp. 357-372 e 420-448.

LUNA, Juan P. and ZECHMEISTER, Elizabeth J. (2010), “Political representation in Latin American”. In: KITSCHELT, Herbert et al (2010) (eds.) Latin American Party Systems. NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119-144.

MAAS, Cora J.M. and HOX, Joop J. (2005), “Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modelling”. Methodology, vol.1, nº3, pp. 86-92.

MCALLISTER, Ian and WHITE, Stephen. (2007), Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Post-Communist Societies. Party Politics. vol.13, nº2, pp.197–216.

MAINWARING, Scott P. and TORCAL, Mariano. (2005), “Party System Theory and Party System Institutionalization after the Third Wave of Democratization.” Paper presented at the Political Science Seminar of the Social Sciences Institute of the University of Lisbon, Portugal.

MARKOWSKI, Radoslaw. (1997), Political Parties and Ideological Spaces in east Central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies vol. 30, nº3, pp. 221-254.

NIEMI, Richard G.; POWELL JR, G. Bingham; STANLEY, Harold W.; EVANS, C. Lawrence. (1985), “Testing the converse partisanship model with new electorates”, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 18, pp. 300-322.

NOËL, Alain and THÉRIEN, Jean-Philippe (2008), Left and Right in Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ROSE, Richard and MUNRO, Neil (2003), Elections and Parties in New European Democracies. Washington: CQ Press.

WELDON, Steven A. (2006), “The Institutional Context of Tolerance for Ethnic Minorities: A Comparative Multilevel Analysis of Western Europe”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, nº2, pp. 331-349.

VAN DER EIJK, Cees; SCHMITT, Hermann; BINDER, Tanja. (2005), “Left-right Orientations and Party Choice”. In: THOMASSEN, Jacques (ed.), The European Voter. A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-191.

ZECHMEISTER, Elizabeth. (2006). What’s Left and Who’s Right? A Q-method Study of Individual and Contextual Influences on the Meaning of Ideological Labels. Political Behavior. vol. 28: pp.151–173.

ZECHMEISTER, Elizabeth. (2010), “Left-right semantics as a facilitator of Programmatic Structuration”. In: KITSCHELT, Herbert et al (2010) (eds.) Latin American Party Systems. NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 76-118.

Mapping and Explaining the Use of the Left-Right Divide* · Noël and Thérien, 2008; Zechmeister,...

Documents

Transcript of Mapping and Explaining the Use of the Left-Right Divide* · Noël and Thérien, 2008; Zechmeister,...